• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

US Army going with hollowpoints?

wait, I thought a while ago the US decided to not field a small caliber rifle round because it tumbled too much upon entry and violated the spirit of the "hollowpoint ban". How can they now change their minds, and who the heck has the authority to do so? Does not sound like something Obama would cotton up to
 
MP's carry ball ammo and they would most likely be first to shoot. Yet investigators and other higher positions carry hollow points for fear of over penetration. I always said it should be the other way around
 
With unarmored haji's in urban environments the target of the future for more and more of the US armed forces, I really can't say this is a bad move. One of the problems in Mogadishu (black hawk down) was the time it took to stop the threats as the bad guys came at the US forces who were pinned down. They expended a lot of extra ammo that could have helped keep a few guys alive, at least a little while longer.
 
I'm sure this will happen right after "the millutary" gets its new service rifle and pistol... that they've been talking about replacing for the last decade or so but not actually doing antyhing about it except running a few taxpayer funded dick measuring contests with HK and FN. I'm sure the DoD will get right on that, chop chop! [rofl]

-Mike
 
That Hague Convention prohibition on hollow points (that the USA didn't sign) sounds like one of those "assault weapons" bans that gun ignorant idiots write into law without knowing what they're talking about.
 
This report was published so people could print it off so gun shop commandos would have something to talk about in the fall of 2015.

-Mike
 
righteousbarbarian said:
That Hague Convention prohibition on hollow points (that the USA didn't sign) sounds like one of those "assault weapons" bans that gun ignorant idiots write into law without knowing what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

It was. It was an early over reaction to "exploding dum dum" bullets which scared the crap out of people when they first came out. Despite the fact that the new bullet that came out of the Dum Dum factory in India were tame in comparison to today's expanding HPs. Also, I suspect there are pre dumdum designs too.

The underlying logic of the hague convention was that soldiers were cannon fodder (which at the time was true) and that there should be protections for them from arms designed to wound and cause pain/mortal injury without immediate death. Chemical and Biologicals are a good example. They created wounded soldiers who would stay alive for tens of minutes to hours. So there would be battlefields worth of crying, screaming dying soldiers to preoccupy and distract any soldier not physically wounded.

Ironically, the hollow point is more likely to quickly cause death (which also offends some) and cause less suffering than ball ammo, but then there is a chance to save wounded soldiers.

Basically, the people who buy into these conventions somehow think they can "civilize" war. I am not convinced that's possible, but I also don't put it past commanders to employ nasty anti-personel weapons. The US has more than a few in it's arsenal including incendiary clusters used in WWII and napalm, or napalm like, bombs in use today.
 
Da_lucche said:
Haven't certain specialized units already been using OTM for some time now ie: MK262, MK318?
Click to expand...

OTM isn't designed to expand like hollow point, so I don't think it counts.
 
terraformer said:
It was. It was an early over reaction to "exploding dum dum" bullets which scared the crap out of people when they first came out. Despite the fact that the new bullet that came out of the Dum Dum factory in India were tame in comparison to today's expanding HPs. Also, I suspect there are pre dumdum designs too.
Click to expand...
IIRC, around the time of the civil war, there were actual exploding rounds designed/proposed as well. It wasn't just expanding rounds that led up to the Hague.

An example:
http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2006/08/20/an-explosive-proposition/
 
terraformer said:
It was. It was an early over reaction to "exploding dum dum" bullets which scared the crap out of people when they first came out. Despite the fact that the new bullet that came out of the Dum Dum factory in India were tame in comparison to today's expanding HPs. Also, I suspect there are pre dumdum designs too.

The underlying logic of the hague convention was that soldiers were cannon fodder (which at the time was true) and that there should be protections for them from arms designed to wound and cause pain/mortal injury without immediate death. Chemical and Biologicals are a good example. They created wounded soldiers who would stay alive for tens of minutes to hours. So there would be battlefields worth of crying, screaming dying soldiers to preoccupy and distract any soldier not physically wounded.

Ironically, the hollow point is more likely to quickly cause death (which also offends some) and cause less suffering than ball ammo, but then there is a chance to save wounded soldiers.

Basically, the people who buy into these conventions somehow think they can "civilize" war. I am not convinced that's possible, but I also don't put it past commanders to employ nasty anti-personel weapons. The US has more than a few in it's arsenal including incendiary clusters used in WWII and napalm, or napalm like, bombs in use today.
Click to expand...

white phosphorus.
 
The people that decide on wars and how they are run can think what they want, But I think that everyone here agrees that if you are the one being shot at, your objective when returning fire is not to wound the other guy. Pretty sure that you want to terminate his aggression as quickly and permanently as possible, once and for all. I also think that we all agree that hollow points are the best way to achieve the goal in this scenario. It would be nice to see these decision makers feel the same way as the guys going into harms way.
 
M60 said:
The people that decide on wars and how they are run can think what they want, But I think that everyone here agrees that if you are the one being shot at, your objective when returning fire is not to wound the other guy. Pretty sure that you want to terminate his aggression as quickly and permanently as possible, once and for all. I also think that we all agree that hollow points are the best way to achieve the goal in this scenario. It would be nice to see these decision makers feel the same way as the guys going into harms way.
Click to expand...
I think we have also demonstrated in the time since the Hague convention that the damage, pain, torture and death that can be inflicted in a mechanized manner by those same people that "decide on wars and how they are run" is far, far worse than anything small arms fire on the battlefield can accomplish.

The best way to make war more humane is aim first for those among your enemy with the highest rank, which is entirely opposite European standards for gentlemanly warfare.
 

Similar threads

Going back to carrying p320x
Replies
8
Views
253
IPSC_DRL
IPSC_DRL
Who's going to the WCL Banquet tonight?
Replies
0
Views
91
Coyote33
Coyote33
House Republicans sell us out
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Dramatic bodycam video from Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church shooting released: ‘Father God, just be with us’
Replies
11
Views
329
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Glasses with Optics
Replies
5
Views
172
DeputyDawg
D
Back
Top Bottom